Janice Turner wrote an article in the Times about prostitution published on Saturday. She gave a statistic, if you can call it a statistic, that is false.
"But research shows men who buy sex are more likely to rape: trading money for consent reduces empathy, makes a man believe only his pleasure counts and increases his likelihood of partner abuse."
She doesn't give a reference for this research. She seems to have copied what Libby Purves wrote last year also in the Times. You would think that Janice could have asked Libby about this research and checked it before repeating it. You would think that the Times would have made sure that the statistic is correct. It seems though that they don't care that they publish false statistics.
I think I know the research that they are talking about. It is Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Do Not Buy Sex: New Data on Prostitution and Trafficking by Melissa Farley. I have already written what I think of this research in my posts student sex workers and more student sex workers.
Briefly, I wrote that Farley seems to be withholding information about this study. She doesn't seem to want to tell us whether men who buy sex report that they have raped more often than other men. Even though they were asked this direct question.
What I didn't know at the time I wrote this is that Melissa Farley is known for this. Consider this from Ronald Weizer's article The Mythology of Prostitution: Advocacy Research and Public Policy.
"In trying to make the case that indoor prostitution victimizes women to the same extent as street prostitution, Farley (2006) reported that a British study by Church et al. (2001) found that workers in indoor venues (private residences, saunas) reported more attempted rapes than street workers. In fact, the Church study reported the opposite: that 28% of street workers said they had ever experienced an attempted rape, compared with 17% of indoor workers. Moreover, Farley failed to mention that street prostitutes were 11 times more likely to have actually been raped: According to Church et al., 22% of the street sample compared with only 2% of the indoor sample had ever been raped while at work. This example is a clear case of both inverting and ignoring findings that contradict one's arguments."
In the article Janice also wrote "It is time that the Nordic model, which decriminalises sex work but makes buying it a crime and has been adopted in France, Ireland and Sweden, is debated in parliament."
What she doesn't seem to know is that it has already been debated in parliament. On 04 July 2018 there was the debate Commercial Sexual Exploitation. You can read what I wrote about it in my page Commercial Sexual Exploitation. All my pages are displayed on the right of this screen.
She wrote "The vast majority of prostitutes are not swinging Belle de Jours but were abused as children, lured in by pimp-boyfriends and muffle their pain with drugs or alcohol". This is just complete rubbish, there is no evidence for this. This isn't even true of drug-addicted street based sex workers. They are a small minority of sex workers anyway.
She ends by stating "No man should have impunity when buying a woman’s body, whether out on a stag night or serving his country". I have never bought a woman's body, I have bought a service.
